scribblet

I disagree with your last statement, there are far more radical Islamists than Christian radicals, I believe there is no comparison today to the radical Islamist movement with Christian fundamentalism. No one is calling them Crusades either as this is not a religious war, it is a class of culture and civilizations. One only need to read about Europe and problems there to know what could lie ahead for North America. Anyone who goes into a Muslim country to try to convert Muslims literally takes their life in their hands, very stupid. At least here, no one is going to kill you for trying to convert someone, with the blessings of the government. Heck, the Jehova Witnesses would be in trouble for sure. Even the G and M has a poll today which leads me to believe that people are starting to wake up and recognize the issues. As the Brits, Ozzies, French and Dutch what they think especially the Brits. How their gov't handles their situation now will shape the future for them: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/4171950.stm Globe Poll: Is it time for Canada to abandon its multiculturalism policy and insist that immigrants adopt Canadian cultural values?

Because it's more social than doing crossword puzzles and more entertaining than playing cards. LOL I think you are right, these groups are very entertaining and sometimes informative.

What agressive take over attempts by the U.S.? Could you be more specific and provide some sources? I wouldn't mind them taking over then we could live in a warm climate all year round.

They usually do, I imagine they are busy right now, I've waited as long as 6 weeks to receive a reply from some, forgot what I was asking. I've received a reply from my CPC MP, but so far, strangely enough, no reply from my liberal MPP. Guess he's busy too.

I was going to tack this onto the abortion thread, but thought I'd post it here to see how people feel about this, and should Canada try something like it... IMHO this is going way too far, their euthanasia laws are also veryliberal (IMO), their slippery slope is now an icy slope. Mandatory abortion proposed in Holland. Official calls for debate to deal with issue of unwanted children © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com Marianne van den Anker A health official in the Netherlands has called for a debate on the idea of forced abortion and contraception to deal with what she sees as a crisis of unwanted children. Alderman Marianne van den Anker of the Leefbaar Rotterdam Party wants specifically to target communities of Antilleans and Arubans where she sees the biggest problems of unwanted children. Her comments have stirred protest by a health foundation working with those communities in Rotterdam. The group, which called the comments degrading, is asking Mayor Ivo Opstelten and other politicians to distance themselves from Van den Anker's views. Van den Anker is a mother of two children and the official in charge of Rotterdam's health and security portfolios. In an interview in a newspaper Saturday, she said she had tried everything to prevent child abuse. "I fail, I fail," she told the interviewer as she outlined her controversial idea for a debate on compulsory abortion and contraception. The target groups for her program are Antillean teenage mothers; drug addicts and people with mental handicaps, she said, according to a report in Expatica. According to the report, Van den Anker said children from these groups run an "unacceptable risk" of growing up without love and with "violence, neglect, mistreatment and sexual abuse." "The exceptions," she said, "and there are some, can be counted on a pair of hands." Van den Anker pointed to the growing number of Antillean youth gangs in Rotterdam whose members come from loveless homes. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=48930

I suppose Canadians take their lead from the government. I do concur that Bush going into Iraq was the topper. I used to post on a now defunct board which was rank with vicious and malicious rants against the U.S. and certainly didn't make me proud to be Canadian. I've seen it on other boards too but will say its not that bad on here. I posted this on the other board. America bashing is different from normal constructive critique of a government and policies, it goes well beyond that. It is anti Americanism at its most radical. It differs from normal constructive criticism in that the goal is not to advise, suggest or fix what is seen as wrong, but to repudiate and destroy. It views every U.S. action, no matter what, from the beginning until now as oppressive and evil. It does not see the U.S. as being wrong in some instances, but everything it does is wrong, no matter who is doing it. There is a mean-spirited conviction that the U.S. cannot now nor ever do anything right and these convictions hold even when the U.S. is giving aid and helping while their soldiers are dying even when peacekeeping. There is a feigned self righteous intellectual and cultural superiority over Americans and there is no satisfying them. This also results in painting anyone who remotely likes or agrees with anything, as being un-Canadian, and anyone who critiques the current liberal government and doesn't uphold what is seen as 'liberal values' are now anti-Canadian and should of course 'leave' This type of knee jerk bashing usually stems from a feeling of inferiority and has resulted in Canada's once proud military being reduced to penury and has prevented Canada from playing a role in the global battle against terrorism.

I would agree that the majority of muslims are not terrorists or radical Islamists, but if only 10% (a figure I read somewhere) are, thats one h..l of a lot of dangerous radicals who wish to do the west harm). Today, radical Islamism is a threat to our way of life, while Christian fundamentalism radical or otherwise is no threat. I don't consider western Christian fundamentalists a threat in any way, as we have a democratic system and supreme courts to maintain our democracy and constitutions. Either way, Christians are not intent on imposing theological law, granted they would like to outlaw abortion but these issues are handled by the courts and government. From Daniel Pipes: The hardest thing for Westerners to understand is not that a war with militant Islam is underway but that the nature of the enemy's ultimate goal. That goal is to apply the Islamic law (the Shari‘a) globally. In U.S. terms, it intends to replace the Constitution with the Qur'an. For a 'religion of peace' this isn't so peaceful, don't try to convert http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188364,00.html Afghan Man Faces Death for Allegedly Converting to Christianity KABUL, Afghanistan — An Afghan man who allegedly converted from Islam to Christianity is being prosecuted in a Kabul court and could be sentenced to death, a judge said Sunday. The defendant, Abdul Rahman, was arrested last month after his family went to the police and accused him of becoming a Christian, Judge Ansarullah Mawlavezada told the Associated Press in an interview. Such a conversion would violate the country's Islamic laws.

It is patently evident that the Islamist aim is to establish a world Caliphate and Sharia. They do declare this as their goal but the West fails to hear them, there is no comparison to Christianity today. Muhammad and the Qur'an, are the main source of inspiration for today's jihadists. with their path to the Muslim paradise, ar Janna, being secured only by killing and being killed for Allah. from Muhammad who was in fact the archetypal Islamic terrorist: "I have been made victorious with terror" (Sahi Bukhari V4B52N220) "I shall terrorise the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them, because they oppose Allah and his apostle." (Qur'an 8:12) "Killing unbelievers is a small matter to us" ( al-Tabari IX:69) "Paradise lies under the shade of swords" (Sahi Bukhari V4B5N73) "The believers fight in Allah's cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed" (Qur'an 9:111) "Muhammad said, ‘You are commanded to carry out jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam' " (Qur'an 47:4) "I have been made victorious with terror" (Sahi Bukhari V4B52N220) "I shall terrorise the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them, because they oppose Allah and his apostle." (Qur'an 8:12) "Killing unbelievers is a small matter to us" ( al-Tabari IX:69) "Paradise lies under the shade of swords" (Sahi Bukhari V4B5N73) "The believers fight in Allah's cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed" (Qur'an 9:111) "Muhammad said, ‘You are commanded to carry out jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam' " (Qur'an 47:4)

The 9/11 attack was against the 'infidel' or any non-muslim. Christians who have committed atrocities are acting in complete opposition to the teachings in the new testament, whereas Muslims are acting in accordance with direct teachings from the Koran. Its definitely okay to kill an 'infidel'. Not to mention that slavery is alive and well in some Muslim countries. The Crusades were actually a backlash against Muslim expansionism and agression, and it is fundamnetal Islamic teaching to forcibly convert non-Muslims or kill them if they refuse to submit to Allah. The current waves of terrorism and jihds are not in opposition to their teafhings, but are consistent with their teachings. From the very start of Islam it wasspread by the sword, and they have never renounced it. Either way, we need to look at today and the future, not the past. Some liberals might be getting knickers in a knot over these 'evil Christians' wanting prayers in school or the ten commandments kept on govt property, but let me know whyen they start beheading innocent hostages and blowing up buildings and people with their own kids, then we can make comparisons.

Not a bad move for Harper really, and sensible for a beginning minority situation, for a gov't which needs to manage the message, as long as its temporary. He needs to get the gov. off on the right foot before the Throne Speech. If it becomes permanent then there would be cause for concern.

Bob Rae has been considered for the post of Governer General in the past (unless you mean me, and I'm not a guy) Bob Rae would be everything Stephen Harper fears - just like him only better at it. As far as the religous thing - Harper's caucus and even his supporters have made it about religion, whether he intended to do that or not. Read Hansard - almost every argument from the Reform/Alliance includes the fact that they are Christian. As I said before: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT! SO AM I. But if his caucus was mostly Jewish, and they tried to legislate that every Canadian male had to be circumcized, even if it was for health reasons (hypothetical), every non-Jew would say that it was not the government's place to tell them what to do. Gay rights have nothing to do with religion and religion has no place in politics. Number one, Bob Rae might not be better at it, thats only your opinion. Secondly, there is no Reform/Alliance party anymore, only the CPC, so please tell us where in the policies they address abortion or other 'social' issues, again using the religious theocracy bit is a crock The only CPC policy on any social issue as far as I know, is a free vote in parliament. You know, a party that encourages diversity of views and opinions and allows open debate and Free Votes. MP's would have free will to vote their concience or their riding's wishes. Harper is more of a libetarian born and raised in Ontario, he may attend church but he cetainly doesn't make religion an issue, that is mainly coming from the press and secular liberals. Yes there are some MP's with strong views in the CPC, there are in the liberals too. Most people have some religious background whether or not they go to a church or whatever, their values and beliefs generally are based on that very upbringing and background. Pretty hard for anyone to think in comletely secular terms, and divorce themselves from everything they've believed in, and take an -anything goes - attitue, or to even embrace the new religion of secular humanism. I agree with separation of church and state, but you cannot deny a group of people their democratic voice because they go to church more often than we do. Neither can you deny a group of people whomever they are, the right to lobby government, to deny a group that right based on the fact they are Christian (or other) would be discrimination. Maybe you could provide a Hansard quoe for us where the CPC and or Harper have made religious comments. Those we need to fear most, are the radical liberal secularists who have been forcing their agenda down our throats for decades. I hadn't really intended this to be about religion but the fact that I read his bio and was comforted by his diverse religous background, may also mean that others will be. (BTW: There is still a Reform Party very much alive and well in Canada - they are just now calling themselves CPC. Mr. Harper has been involved in more parties than Belinda Stronach - and all without crossing the floor.) The point is, that casting doubt on anyone's integrity is very easy, so it wouldn't take much to put Rae and Harper on the same level, where we could then simply look at their abilities to lead our country during turbulent times. Both strong economists; both apt policy makers, but Mr. Rae has a much better record on the International scene and a more realistic view of our involvement in the Middle East. Yes its easy to dredge up information of the internet and try to 'tie' it into someone thus casting aspersions on that person's integrity, it is too easily done, and too many people like to use character assassination and malicious rumour to do it. As for the Reform party, I beg to differ, the Reform party is dead, if you read up on the CPC and its policies it has morphed into liberal lite with a few old reformers still involved, that old left wing bogey man is a crock. Personally I would take Harper over Bob Rae any day, he has the same intellectual ability and economic strength ( I would question rae's on his record). As Preston Manning said recently: "There is a hostility toward Protestant evangelicals or conservative Catholics trying to say anything into the political arena. Opponents would be reluctant to attack someone of Jewish faith or a Hindu, but they don't seem to have same reservation about going after others.'" In the House of Commons, faith is almost taboo. "It's ridiculous and undemocratic as well." BTW Liberal MP John McKay is a Baptist who referres t9o himself as his party's "token evangelical"; not to mention Tom Wappel and some others.

Boy, if this doesn't take the cake, these liberal senators have just made the best case yet for abolishing (or electing) the Senate. Maybe its time to put it out of its misery. http://www.ottawasun.com/Comment/Editorial...17/1492006.html If ever we needed proof that it's time to reform or abolish the Senate, we're about to be handed it by a group of frustrated Liberals in the upper chamber who seem unable to cope with the idea that their natural governing party is out of power. Sen. Joe Day is warning that he and the 65 other Liberals in the so-called chamber of sober second thought will make life difficult for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government if they dare to bring in legislation that the Grits consider contrary to the national interest. What utter gall. It's outrageous to think that a bunch of Liberal hacks and hangers-on could hold up the work of parliamentarians we elected to set policy and pass laws. We have seen this show before, of course, when a Grit-stacked Senate tried in 1990 to block GST legislation introduced by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's government. That attempt led to one of the most disgraceful and embarrassing displays ever seen on Parliament Hill as senators blew whistles and kazoos, rang cowbells and quoted from the Bible in their attempts to disrupt proceedings. Tory Sen. Marjory LeBreton says it was that kind of behaviour "that seriously damaged the already fragile reputation of the Senate." No kidding. We'd compare them to a bunch of 8-year-olds but don't want to risk offending the children. Losing their grip on the reins of power is never easy for Liberals to accept, but here's a lesson that they had better learn and learn now: Harper and the Conservatives form the government of the day. They were elected to power on a platform that committed them to some very specific programs, including tax reform, financial assistance to parents, crime control and restoring faith in Medicare.

Why should everything be spelled out for everyone to know??? Especially when it comes to war?? What "guarantees" that there won't be any tortures do you need to hear? A promise? A swear on boyscout's honor? If given, will you then go back peacefully to pretend that this kind of reality does not exist anymore? Enough of this fluff about pseudo-humanitarian posturing! This attitude is more damaging to our soldiers' morale. Let our soldiers be as real soldiers in a REAL WAR! Show your concern for our own before others! Stand 100% behind our own soldiers rather than mollycuddling the enemy! Get real! Now is definitely NOT the time to have a debate in Parliament. That time has passed, the cavalry have left the Depot, and the troops have jumped from the plane. At least for this initial commitment, any that wanted such a debate should have made a great big racket about it last year....when the Liberals made the original decision, and not now. As far as Harper restricting information, his instructions reflect the extreme caution his new government has to take, considering he has a number of rookies; that along with need and a desire to be focused on campaign issues. We all know how things can get taken out of context and misconstrued by the press, and by groups such as this. Better not to give out too much which can be spun and twisted. I agree to a certain extent, but by not justifying your position, you leave it up to speculation, and that can be more damaging than a few twisted words. Justifying what position? I'm not privy to inside information, neither is the press for that matter. The CPC a have been subject to media spin and attacks, for a long time, I don't blame Harper for using extreme caution.

Bob Rae has been considered for the post of Governer General in the past (unless you mean me, and I'm not a guy) Bob Rae would be everything Stephen Harper fears - just like him only better at it. As far as the religous thing - Harper's caucus and even his supporters have made it about religion, whether he intended to do that or not. Read Hansard - almost every argument from the Reform/Alliance includes the fact that they are Christian. As I said before: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT! SO AM I. But if his caucus was mostly Jewish, and they tried to legislate that every Canadian male had to be circumcized, even if it was for health reasons (hypothetical), every non-Jew would say that it was not the government's place to tell them what to do. Gay rights have nothing to do with religion and religion has no place in politics. Number one, Bob Rae might not be better at it, thats only your opinion. Secondly, there is no Reform/Alliance party anymore, only the CPC, so please tell us where in the policies they address abortion or other 'social' issues, again using the religious theocracy bit is a crock The only CPC policy on any social issue as far as I know, is a free vote in parliament. You know, a party that encourages diversity of views and opinions and allows open debate and Free Votes. MP's would have free will to vote their concience or their riding's wishes. Harper is more of a libetarian born and raised in Ontario, he may attend church but he cetainly doesn't make religion an issue, that is mainly coming from the press and secular liberals. Yes there are some MP's with strong views in the CPC, there are in the liberals too. Most people have some religious background whether or not they go to a church or whatever, their values and beliefs generally are based on that very upbringing and background. Pretty hard for anyone to think in comletely secular terms, and divorce themselves from everything they've believed in, and take an -anything goes - attitue, or to even embrace the new religion of secular humanism. I agree with separation of church and state, but you cannot deny a group of people their democratic voice because they go to church more often than we do. Neither can you deny a group of people whomever they are, the right to lobby government, to deny a group that right based on the fact they are Christian (or other) would be discrimination. Maybe you could provide a Hansard quoe for us where the CPC and or Harper have made religious comments. Those we need to fear most, are the radical liberal secularists who have been forcing their agenda down our throats for decades.

Why should everything be spelled out for everyone to know??? Especially when it comes to war?? What "guarantees" that there won't be any tortures do you need to hear? A promise? A swear on boyscout's honor? If given, will you then go back peacefully to pretend that this kind of reality does not exist anymore? Enough of this fluff about pseudo-humanitarian posturing! This attitude is more damaging to our soldiers' morale. Let our soldiers be as real soldiers in a REAL WAR! Show your concern for our own before others! Stand 100% behind our own soldiers rather than mollycuddling the enemy! Get real! Now is definitely NOT the time to have a debate in Parliament. That time has passed, the cavalry have left the Depot, and the troops have jumped from the plane. At least for this initial commitment, any that wanted such a debate should have made a great big racket about it last year....when the Liberals made the original decision, and not now. As far as Harper restricting information, his instructions reflect the extreme caution his new government has to take, considering he has a number of rookies; that along with need and a desire to be focused on campaign issues. We all know how things can get taken out of context and misconstrued by the press, and by groups such as this. Better not to give out too much which can be spun and twisted.

Yes, for those who can afford it. I am all for private health care. The issue they have in the states is not the level of care, but access to it. In the USA if your private insurance provider (if you have one) says you're covered then you are ok. But what if the private insurance provider deems your health issue one that is not covered? What then? I am in no way saying our care is better -- it's not. Our care (such as it is, such as it needs improvement) does cover every citizen, not just those who pay a private insurance company. Bring in private health care to Canada -- but keep private insurers (HMOs -- Human Monster Organizations) from taking over the public insurance system. Not necessarily, from what I've learned and Americans I speak to say its not as bad as Canadians think it is. There is medicare and medicaid, there are public hospitals who will treat you if you don't have coverage. Thousands don't have health insurance, many by choice, they would rather have the second car etc. Those who can't afford it qualify for aid. Obviously its not socialisted medicine as in 'Canada, and *I believe there should be better care for the poor, but most Americans don't get as upset about it as foreigners do. Agree about the HMOs there's good and bad, and private care in Canada won't enable people to jump the line, it would get them right out of it enabling others to move up. My friend is very thankful he moved to the States, heaven knows how he would be faring in Canada.

Whether he wears it on his sleeve or not, you have to admit that it is a hot topic and many of his supporters certainly do speak of it. Perhaps because of the Reform Party's stance on same-sex marriage, abortion, etc. Most of the debates centered on religous beliefs and not human rights. I'll have to verify the facts on the % of Evangelical Christians, but I know that people like Cheryl Gallant and David Sweet will be watched closely by mainstream Canadians; not to mention Stockwell Day. Yes its a hot topic, mainly because the media and left wingers make it so, and use it as a fear tactic. I was under the impression that all people had a right to voice an opinion, regardless of their religion, even those 'evil fundamentalists' are entitled to a voice in parliament. Maybe you could tell us exactly what the CPC's (not the defunct Reform party)policy is on abortion etc. Harper wants a free vote in parliament on whether or not the subject should be re-visited, it likely won't pass. Regardless, I'm not particularly religious but I agree with not changing the definition of SSM, one can have beliefs and values not based on fundamentalist religious beliefs. There are a number of liberal MP's against it, and the whole party including Martin voted against it a few years ago, either way, it is not taking away anyone's rights, they can still have the same legal recognition and benefits. (another subject allready under discussion). I don't know what other social issues there are.

No time to reply to all, but IMHO Bob Rae is unelectable in Ontario, the Rae days hit people of all political stripes and are not forgotten. As far as religious tolerance goes thats a straw man argument, Harper might be religious but he doesn't wear it on his sleeve or even talk about it, its a non issue, strictly a scare tactic. The majority of his caucus is not evangelical, and a few are not even Christian. I think it might be time for me to donate to the NCC again...

I've met many Americans and have some dear friends in the U.S., there is little difference between us. Canadians seem to have a smug sense of superiority over the U.S. particularly when it comes to health care, but for the most part its a crock. We have some Canadian friends who just moved to the States (we are there now on holiday) he actually has his U.S. citizenship so is entitled to medicare now (over 65). He got some bad news before he left Canada, he's been diagnosed with Lou Gherigs disease, not a pretty prospect anywhere, and was on a 5 month wait list in Ontario to see a specialist. He moved here and got in to see specialists right away, and is receiving care etc. at the moment. He feels that he has a better chance in the U.S. of immediate treatment, not that there is a cure, but if he were in Canada he'd still be waiting in line. This is a great piece, worth a read. http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=6250 First, Canadians are not morally entitled to hate the United States. Our economy has not been strangled by U.S. manipulations; our leaders have not been assassinated, nor our masses killed, nor our lands invaded. Those who have suffered the aforementioned atrocities, though they should not hate, should yet be forgiven for hating. We have suffered none of these – our hatred is second-hand and cheap.

Evidently Google balked at providing more than they felt was 'reasonable' pertinent information, even though the police pressed them for it. 'Tis indeed a slippery slope.Howver, I heard on the news that some of this porn included infants, under the age of 18 months. I think a rope and a tree would be too good for these guys, doesn't sound like enough suffering. Ya apparently there was live broadcasts and stuff... pretty sick freaks. Sick indeed. Wonder if anyone would consider the death penalty for perverts who do this to infants, and hanging is too good for them. I suppose if we lose some privacy its worth it to catch these freaks.

But as you see in this chilling video, there was a helluva lot more than 5 people calling for murder and jihad at this hatefest. So this is the 'religion of peace' - gee must be Islam impersonators out there. I wonder how many Canadians (and Americans) are actually aware of what goes on in Europe, I'm guessing they don't have a clue.

He can't run again anyway, the second term is always a lame duck term. Any guess on the contenders will be (repub.) or is it too early?

Well there isn't a link. The best chance you'll find would be the fact that there are some American's teaching at the U of C where Harper went to school. There isn't a real connection though. That is about all I came up with through initial searches, I am still lookin, but I really doubt I will find anything important. You can try Hill and Knowlton, though my post was not to imply that they are joined at the hip, only that Mr. Harper is more of a Republican than a parliamentarian, so adheres to Bush principles (or lack thereof). By his own admission he is a big fan of Ronald Reagan. He just has to do better if he hopes to convince Canadians that we should get behind him. Not sure what kind of a 'link' you are trying to come up with, do a few phone calls between the two of the constitutute a 'link' or are you trying to come up with some nefarious monetary connection. Oh I know, the Bilderbergers, Harper is out to rule the world. Sorry, it is just plain silly. Harper is more of an American Democrat than Republican, there isn't real left wing party in the U.S. Harper is a policy wonk, and doing quite well as a parliamentarian, we'll see how much better he will do when Parliament opens.

Absolutely correct on all counts, although I would phrase it slightly differently. The way I see it, the US has no credible left-wing choice. The Republicans are extreme-right, and the Democrats are centre-right. That's what makes the CPC (which is still slightly to the right) SEEM more left. They are still a right leaning party, just not as far right as the two US choices. I agree, t really makes me laugh when people try to compare Harper with Bush and the Republicans.

I'm not sure if I follow the 'greedy oppressive capitalist' comment. Do you mean Bill Gates? Developing software that will help track down sexual preditors is a great contribution. and I'm proud that it was the result of a Canadian initiative. I believe he was being sarcastic. I guess we allk know that the U.S. Justice Department has gone to court to get access to Google search records to help prevent access to online pornography and won. Yahoo, MMSN and AOL had already complied with the government's request. But did you all know that what you search for is stored in that company's records and that it can be traced back to your computer?